ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2023
Online Survey to Investigate Asthma Medication Prescription and Adherence from the Perspective of Patients and Healthcare Practitioners in England.
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The need for implementing a standardized, evidence-based emergency department discharge plan for optimizing adult asthma patient outcomes in the UAE, expert meeting report.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Online Survey to Investigate Asthma Medication Prescription and Adherence from the Perspective of Patients and Healthcare Practitioners in England [Letter].Journal of asthma and allergy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High short-acting β Methods: Data were collected using online surveys from HCPs and people with asthma (≥18 years old with a confirmed asthma diagnosis of any severity) who had consented to research participation through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: In total, 76 HCPs and 63 patients were invited to take part. Of 48 valid HCP responders, 54.2% (n=26) reported scheduling an annual asthma treatment review with their patients and 83.3% of general practitioners (n=40) had prescribed repeated inhalers at the patient's request. Of 47 valid patient responders, 57.4% (n=27) reported using their reliever (SABA) inhaler daily and 55.3% of patients (n=26) reported being prescribed a preventer inhaler. Of the total patient responders, 31.9% (n=15) reported that they never used their preventer inhaler. Consistent annual adherence with preventer inhalers was reported by 44.7% of all valid responders (n=21), while other patients admitted to using preventers intermittently. Conclusion: SABA and ICS prescription patterns are driven by a combination of HCP and patient factors. Opportunities exist to improve asthma control and behaviours around inhaler use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.